##PAGE1##

1

2026:APHC:5476

APHC010901242017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1176/2017

Between:

1. T HE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., D NO.4-13-25, 1ST

FLOOR, OPP. HARIHARAMAHAL, KORETIPADU, GUNTUR.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. P ATAN MEERABI, W/O LATE NAGUL MEERA, R/O DIDUGUBAVI

CENTER, OLD MANGALAGIRI, MANGALGIRI TOWN, GUNTUR

DISTRICT.

2. V AJAY KUMAR, S/O. VEERASWAMY, OWNER OF LORRY NO.AP-07

TT-8499, R/O 4-158, ETUKUR POST, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. V RAGHU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. U KANAKA RAJU

2.

The Court made the following:

2

2026:APHC:5476

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1176/2017

J U D G M E N T:

1. The present Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company

aggrieved by the Order passed by the Commissioner of Employees

Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tenali, dated 26.04.2017

in W.C.No.27 of 2012.

2. Brief facts of the case are that:-

i. A Claim Petition was filed by the applicants stating that one Patan Nagul

Meera was working as Driver under Opposite Party (O.P.) No.1 on his Lorry

bearing Registration No. AP07 TT 8499 and the Opposite Party (O.P.) No.2 is

the Insurer for that vehicle and he received personal injuries in an accident

arising out of and in the course of his employment on 14.09.2011 and died on

21.09.2011 while undergoing treatment at Gunturu Hospital. The deceased was

aged about 36 years and was getting wages of Rs.6,000/- per month besides

batta of Rs.250/- per day by the time of his death.

ii. O.P.No.1 who is the Owner of the Lorry remained ex-parte in the case.

iii. O.P.2 filed his Counter by denying most of the averments made in the

Petition filed by the applicants stating that the applicants are put to strict proof of

the same with the authenticated documentary evidence. The said Lorry was not

insured with O.P.No.2 by the date of accident, the amount claimed as

compensation is highly excessive and without any basis, the deceased slept over

the load on the lorry and fell down due to his negligence only and hence prayed

to dismiss the petition with costs against O.P.No.2.

3

2026:APHC:5476

iv. Basing on the said pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues.

1) Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act

and he died due to personal injuries he received in an accident arising out

of and in the course of his employment? Or not, under Opposite party -1 as

H.V Driver?

2) Amount of compensation payable? To the applicants.

3) Who are liable to pay the compensation?

v. On behalf of the Applicants, wife to the deceased was examined as A.W.1,

Owner of the Lorry was examined as A.W.2 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.12 documents

were marked.

vi. One V.Umadevi was examined as R.W.1 on behalf of opposite party No.2

and Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 documents were marked.

vii. The Court below duly considering the evidence of R.W.1 who categorically

deposed that by the time of accident the Insurance Policy was in force and on the

date of accident the deceased was working as the Driver of Lorry of O.P.No.1

and the cause of death was due to fall from the top of the lorry and also

considering the fact that it is clearly mentioned about the employment, accident,

injuries and death etc., of the deceased in the F.I.R., inquest report and evidence

of A.W.2 etc., the claimants proved their case beyond reasonable doubt and held

that the O.P.No‟s.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation

of Rs.5,91,621/- to the claimants as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-.

3. Challenging this, the present Appeal is preferred by the O.P.No.2

i.e., the Insurance Company on the ground that the Commissioner failed to

consider that in the final report filed by the police before the concerned Criminal

Court, which was marked as Ex.B.2, it was clearly mentioned that b